成唯識論述記 1.120

1.120

次長行中，依頌正答。二段如頌，何故本頌先首答難標論宗者？如《樞要》說。然釋本頌上三句中，文意有二：初略釋頌，答外所徵；次「云何應知實無外境」下，廣破外執，顯前頌義。初略解中有二判文：第一、合作二文科。初別解三句；後愚夫所計實我、實法下，總解三句。別解三句中，初別解第一句；「彼二俱有種種相轉」下，別解第二句；「如是諸相，若由假說」下，別解第三句。第二、總作三文科，別解三句故。「若由假說」下，乃至「亦勝義有」，皆解第三句。

Next, in the prose commentary, he answers properly according to the verse. The two sections are like the verse; why the root verse first answers the objection and indicates the thesis of the treatise is as explained in the Shunyao. However, in explaining the first three lines of the root verse, the textual intent has two parts: First, briefly explaining the verse to answer the external interrogation; second, from "How should it be known that there are truly no external objects?" downward, extensively refuting external clingings and elucidating the meaning of the preceding verse. In the initial brief explanation, there are two outlines of the text: First, combining them into a two-part outline: first, explaining the three lines separately; later, from "Real self and real dharmas imagined by foolish ordinary persons" downward, explaining the three lines collectively. In explaining the three lines separately: first, explaining the first line separately; from "Both of them operate with various marks" downward, explaining the second line separately; from "These marks, if established by metaphor" downward, explaining the third line separately. Second, generally making a three-part outline, explaining the three lines separately; thus from "If established by metaphor" downward to "also exist in ultimate truth" all explain the third line.